{"id":177293,"date":"2026-03-22T07:17:45","date_gmt":"2026-03-22T15:17:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=177293"},"modified":"2026-03-22T07:17:45","modified_gmt":"2026-03-22T15:17:45","slug":"international-law-wont-stop-a-missile","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=177293","title":{"rendered":"International Law Won\u2019t Stop a Missile"},"content":{"rendered":"

Piers Morgan writes<\/a>: “So not only has Iran brazenly lied about its ballistic missile range capacity, but this means it can probably hit the UK with them – and we have zero, I repeat ZERO, defence against these missiles. Very worrying.” <\/p>\n

Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett responds: “Don\u2019t worry, it\u2019s against \u201cinternational law\u201d for Iran to fire them at you. The same \u201cinternational law\u201d that says you can\u2019t preempt the threat. So breathe easy Piers.”<\/p>\n

Piers Morgan and Randy Barnett are not really arguing about missiles. They are arguing about what protects a country when a hostile state has the capacity to strike it.<\/p>\n

Morgan\u2019s instinct is threat-first. If Iran can hit the UK and Britain has no effective defense against such missiles, that is the problem. Capability plus hostile intent equals danger. The weapon itself changes the situation. The practical question becomes what can deter it, destroy it, or preempt it.<\/p>\n

Barnett\u2019s response is a sarcastic attack on legal illusion. \u201cInternational law\u201d cannot shoot down a missile. It cannot physically prevent an attack. It restrains only to the extent that states choose to be restrained or fear consequences imposed by stronger powers. In that sense, Barnett is saying that legal prohibition without enforcement is not security.<\/p>\n

Carl Schmitt makes this sharper. For Schmitt, the heart of politics is not rule-following but the decision made in the exception. His famous claim is that sovereign is he who decides on the exception. In ordinary times, law governs. In moments of existential danger, somebody decides whether ordinary law still applies. That is the real issue hiding inside this exchange.<\/p>\n

Morgan is reacting to the exception. He is saying that if Iran can strike Britain and Britain cannot stop it, then Britain faces a possible emergency where survival outruns legal comfort. Barnett is mocking the idea that abstract legal norms can resolve that emergency. Schmitt would say Barnett is right about the structure of the problem. When a state believes it faces an existential threat, the decisive question is not what the law says in theory. It is who has the authority to decide that the situation is exceptional and what measures necessity permits.<\/p>\n

This is why Schmitt is so unsettling here. He exposes the weakness of liberal faith that rules can stand above politics in the last instance. International law looks universal and binding in peacetime. But when the stakes turn existential, it depends on political actors deciding whether to obey it, reinterpret it, or ignore it. There is no world sovereign standing above the conflict to enforce the rules impartially. There are only states, alliances, capabilities, and decisions.<\/p>\n

That also reframes the argument over preemption. Morgan\u2019s fear implies a Schmittian logic even if he would never put it that way. If the threat is grave enough, waiting to be struck may look irrational. Barnett\u2019s joke carries the same implication. A legal order that forbids preemption but cannot protect you from annihilation is not a serious answer to the problem of political existence. Schmitt would say that once survival is in play, necessity will generate its own legality after the fact. States act, then lawyers rationalize.<\/p>\n

So the exchange is not just threat perception versus legal naivete. It is liberal normativity colliding with Schmitt\u2019s hard political realism. Morgan is saying capability matters more than legal prohibition. Barnett is saying law without force is theater. Schmitt adds the deeper point that the theater ends the moment someone decides the situation is exceptional.<\/p>\n

That is the real lesson. International law may shape reputation, coalition-building, and diplomatic argument. It may matter a great deal in normal circumstances. But Schmitt reminds us that it does not abolish the political. When the possibility of destruction becomes concrete, the decisive fact is not the rule. It is who decides, and who can enforce the decision.<\/p>\n

Piers Morgan fears the missile. Randy Barnett mocks the rule. Carl Schmitt explains why, in the emergency both men are imagining, the decision will matter more than the law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Piers Morgan writes: “So not only has Iran brazenly lied about its ballistic missile range capacity, but this means it can probably hit the UK with them – and we have zero, I repeat ZERO, defence against these missiles. Very … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[551],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177293","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-law"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t